Leica Q2 review

The Leica Q2 is a fixed-lens, full-frame camera sporting a new 47.3MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and replaces the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116), launched in 2015.

The Q2 looks essentially the same as its predecessor, but under the hood notable improvements have been made including the addition of weather-sealing, better battery life, a new processor and a much-improved electronic viewfinder. Pixel count has also nearly doubled.

Key Specifications:

47.3MP full-frame sensor

28mm F1.7 Summilux stabilized lens

3.68MP OLED EVF with 0.76x magnification

3" fixed touchscreen LCD with 1.04 million dots

Fast autofocus and smoothly damped manual focus ring

Native ISO range of 50-50,000

4K video capture

Leaf shutter up to 1/2000 sec

E-shutter up to 1/40,000 sec

IP52 rated dust and water resistant

Magnesium-alloy body

Wi-Fi and Bluetooth

Improved battery life

While the Q2 replaces the original Q in Leica's lineup, the Leica Q-P - a 'stealthy' version of the Leica Q - will remain available. The Leica Q2 sells for a recommended price of $4995 / £4250 / €4790.

Raw photo processed in Adobe Camera Raw.ISO 250 | 1/80 sec | F2.8

What's new and how it compares

The Q2 and original Q look pretty similar, but there are a lot of upgrades under the hood. Here's the nitty gritty.

Comments

It's a fine camera and they didn't raise the price as much I expected, but there is still absolutely nothing wrong with the original Q, it is a bit lighter and it does the same thing nearly as well.The lack of an AA filter and the amount of distortion correction necessary reduces the difference between the two sensors, even more so at higher ISOs. Megapixels are overrated.

As an X100 shooter, I would like to have one for large prints. But how often to I shoot large prints? Am I willing to spend 5k on a camera that will print larger than my current camera? If I was a "Pro" or did not have to think about putting my family first financially, than I would consider it. It is a fine bauble and fine tool for sure. I am glad Leica is doing this camera niche well. It goes to show that Fuji did the market research for Leica. With the larger lens than the X100, you might as well get an A7 unless you like the Leica as a status symbol and fashion accessory.

Just so you understand, working to .01 inches is not tens times the price of working to .1 inches. It's much more. Therefore, no a lens-camera that costs ten times that of another is not going to be ten times as good.

But yes, the Q V1 is a significantly better camera-lens than the Fuji X100F

You also managed to "forget" with your "question" that the Q has a sensor that is more than twice the size of the sensor in the Fuji. That's a huge bit of the cost of either Q.

Then basic multiplication: 5 X 13 equals 65 not 50. So you meant: Is it 3.8 times as good?

Yes, I meant 5 times the price. Twice the megapixels does not mean twice the resolution either. The same goes for sensor area multipliers. too. I am sure this will take fantastic images and a joy to use. My point was the value in comparison. I get that it is a joy to use a pretty camera like having a pretty wife. But pretty wives can be expensive. Especially when you trade them in ;)

I was kinda being flippant, however. If you're poor (like me) then my Fuji X100T is very much the "poor man's Leica" and people fairly regularly mistake it for said Leica. If you're rich then the Leica would be the "rich man's Fuji"

Both cameras take great pictures, I'm sure. The more expensive one, probably a little more so, but I would sure hope so for the price!

(HowAboutRaw)Made in Germany is one of the reasons a lot of Leica-ists say it is so expensive. Also, it has German branding. Furthermore, if I am spending Leica like money, I want to imagine that Lederhosen wearing retentive, stern no rhythm engineer type people obsessively turned every screw and wrote every piece of code. The camera smelling like sauerkraut would be a nice touch too.

Seems like it’s the same sensor (modulo microlens array, etc.) as the D850, Z7, and Panasonic S1R.

More interestingly, it looks to me like a Z6/Z7 with a lens is barely larger than the Q (mainly 4mm wider and with a viewfinder hump), and the Canon RP with adapter and 40mm STM would be smaller! Makes a Z7 with 35mm f1.8 seem like a great bargain.

Much as I like and admire the Z7, I cannot see the similarity in size between the Q and the Z7 with the 35/1.8. As you say, one has a large hump, that alone is no small difference. But the lens? The 35/1.8 is twice as long, which makes for a very awkward shape. Practically, the would stow very differently.

The Q2 has a 50.4mp sensor (cropped to display 47.3) Is that the same sensor as anything out there? I don't know.

I do like the Q2 a lot. Part of me would like to dump my excessive collection of M cameras and lenses which, sometimes feel nauseatingly extravagant and excessive. This might be camera that simplifies my photographic life.

I'm surprised that so many people assume that Panasonic and Leica use the same sensor as Nikon, disregarding the fact that the latter is a BSI sensor.

Also, if DPR's database is correct, the resolution is different. Panasonic and Leica use a 50 MP sensor, and Nikon uses a 47 MP sensor. These are the total numbers of pixels on the chip, not the "effective MP".

The Sony RX1RIII to come will be more tempting, but once those companies that make good really-small 35mm lenses for E mount start making one for Z, I'll get a Z7, and that small combo will be what I use 90% of the time.

I won't buy any other native Z lens (of any brand), since for all my other purposes "big" is fine, and the adapter can handle my existing collection of lenses.

Good points everyone. If it’s a completely new sensor then that’s very interesting. The 35 is kind of long — the lack of a pancake in nikon’s Roadmap is disappointing. (The canon RP with adapter and 40mm pancake would be interesting if the RP were better)

Actually, Leica likely has more than 50% of the market share for fixed lens full framed cameras.

There's exactly one other, the Sony RX1RII. It's not cheap. The lens doesn't equal the Leica's for colour; it doesn't have the good ergonomics of the Q. But in fairness to the Sony the lens has less distortion and full corner coverage. And the Sony is a better video camera.

So your statement reads like commentary on the Ricoh GR3, and the overall market share for all Pentax-Ricoh cameras. Yes, a small share of the whole market for digital cameras. But right now, in March 2019, the Ricoh GR3 (and GR2) is the only APSC sensored fixed focal length camera you can buy new. Now the GR2 hasn't been widely popular like the Leica Q, but that Ricoh sold well for Ricoh-Pentax. (Leica has discontinued the current X, and X-U, without announcing a replacement.)

The Q/Q2 are definitely the most reasonably priced Leica cameras compared to plausible alternatives.

I don’t think Fujifilm has stopped selling Its APS-C fixed lens models, which are each individually probably more popular than the GR models.

50% of the full frame fixed lens market is not a big market. That said, I’d be surprised if Leica is outselling Sony even if the Leica Q isn’t much more expensive than the RX1r ii. The Sony is TINY in comparison.

Despite the lack of dedicated modern digital camera controls (we expect horrible ergos from Leica, and a step backwards even from the Q), not bad. I like the lens and sensor. I'd actually consider this for $995!

@StringI’m not sure if that’s someone who knows everything about hardwares either. If he thinks this camera should legitimately be priced at less than $1000 without the Leica tax, surely he knows nothing about even hardwares

@Angrymagpie:The "Leica tax", as you put it, has nothing to do with hardware. It is in fact pretty much what you said, an additional fee that has nothing to do with the product itself.

Consideration of a product without regard for its price only makes sense when its performance is so spectacular that price becomes irrelevant.

This, however, looks to be a very good fixed-lens camera. At its price point it will get blown out of the water in just about every way a camera can be judged.

Its ergonomics are weak. Really weak, actually. You wanna talk about "photography" (relevant to user experience and either getting the shot or not), then ergos matter. A lot! Hunting menus, even with a touchscreen, is not a good user experience. And will result in missing a lot of shots and getting less than ideal (as in what you intended to capture and how) shots.

What this camera offers is likely extremely good IQ. But almost everything nowadays does. It's not special, sorry.

@Sir 7Find me something that will, in your own words, blow the Q2 out of the water, at $995, or the price you think this camera should be set. Then maybe there can be an air of legitimacy in your hyperbolic and uninformed argument.

Its price point is $4,995. Not $995. You want me to find you $4,995 cameras that blow it out of the water? Show me one that WON'T...

I'd rather shoot my RX10M3 that i picked up used for $700. And if you knew how much i can't stand shooting Sony you'd get my point. My point is that awful ergonomics and a 28mm-lens-only-forever is so restrictive and impractical that fantastic IQ is what's irrelevant about it, not what's substantial. And if you think an RX10M3 is my main/only camera, no. I got it to leave in my car at all times to have good IQ (i didn't say "great" or "world's best" so don't go all strawman on me) and 24-600mm equivalent range whenever something comes up. That's how pointless and ergonomically poor the Q2 is. My car camera that i don't care about makes more sense.

I'd pay a grand for the nostalgic novelty that the Q2 is. A fun occasional toy. But it's no tool. It's a toy. Fun, but not to be taken seriously.

Look at your original comment, you clearly felt that the Q2 is only worth considering at $995. You sir have no credibility here. And the RX100 comparison is just laughable frankly. Leica Q2 is indeed an expensive camera, and one can indeed choose plenty of other options to get similar if not better performance/experience. But you seem to lack the maturity to make these arguments, and had to resort to some kind of fanboyism instead

I know a bunch of pros, and they too would never throw away $4,995 on the Q either. Nor would they throw any money away on any Leica gear to be honest. In conversation we all laugh at Leica, but praise their optical quality, and go back to perfectly contentedly shooting our Nikons and Canons with/for our perfectly contented clients. :)

I have a feeling that almost every other camera released around the same time the Q was released outsold the Q...

Just sayin'... Not that it matters. In the same way that Leica selling some Qs doesn't matter. We all know that Leica sells some cameras, as does every other camera manufacturer. But that doesn't make any of them good cameras, nor does it make any of them worth the money. Only the cameras themselves and the results they produce and they way they produce the results determines how good a camera is, and then whether they're worth the money...

@sir7Totally agree about most pros not using Leica. Hard to justify spending anything when what you've got pays the bills, but most pros are starving. I'm sure they'd all love it if they were given one

I've seen plenty of rich kids snapping photos of their food/coffee/girlfriend with Leica cameras and for that reason alone I'd never considered getting anything Leica if I'm honest. However, there are plenty of good photographers using Leica equipments even now, so it'd be wrong to say that "pros" don't use Leica. The reality is "pros" use whatever they fancy, and some of them fancy a Leica.

@3pgrey:Nah, the pros i know, and really everyone i know, would immediately sell whatever Leica gear was given to them if it was new, so as to be able to sell as "New". If used, they'd play with the stuff for a week or so, then sell it. We all like the look of the images that Leica glass makes, but the bodies are so bad none of us can take them seriously for anything other than studio shooting or landscapes. But even then, we'd rather shoot other gear. We shoot Nikon and Canon pro glass as our mains and that's really good glass. When Leica glass is better, it's far far far from night and day. Leica is jewelry, plain and simple. We don't have time for that, even those of us who can afford it.

@Angrymagpie:I said "I know a bunch of pros, and they..." I didn't say all pros. And as you allude, Leica is a rich kid's toy. We're not posers and we don't need image. We need tools. Leicas are wilfully and unwillfully crippled. We're not going to pay several times more for crippled gear. For those that want Leica jewelry, that's cool. But I'm never going to treat Leica as anything more than the jewelry it is until they make a serious camera.

Look, if you work with a specific kind of tool for long enough, you can become sentimental with it. The same goes for craft and skill. Photography is a form of craft and cameras are tool, yes. But I think it's obvious that most people develop some degree of sentimentality with the craft and the tool. To some people, Leica is an excellent "tool" because it rekindles the kind of sentimentality they've developed throughout their career, and that's why some people enjoy using them even though other alternatives can produce better results. And why shouldn't they if they judge the "tool" as capable of delivering the results they want while giving them that extra something in the process? The problem is Leica is now so expensive that they mostly appeal to rich people who do not have anything near this kind of organic connection with the art and craft of photography.

"I know a bunch of pros, and they too would never throw away $4,995 on the Q either. Nor would they throw any money away on any Leica gear to be honest"

And yet Leica sells Qs, and sells gear to pros.

"I have a feeling that almost every other camera released around the same time the Q was released outsold the Q.."

Sorry that's a preposterous claim, you're pretending the competition for the Q is some mass market camera. But the competition is one Sony, and judging only by what I see on the streets: The Q has outsoid the RX1RII.

More hackneyed, and ignorant Leica bashing: "Leica is a rich kid's toy", and of course "jewelry".

Couple other things, Leica ergonomics are almost always excellent, and yes, at the very highend: Leica's best lenses are night and day better than the best from Canikon.

No, DPR won't be joining a street photo competition. That's the point, this is a gear website. (Learn about antecedents.)

It does't read like you understood my point about this being a gear website. I'll try again: Because this is a gear website, sample photos aren't about extraordinary moments, always stunning composition, and life on the street.

@howaboutraw As a system rangefinders lag behind slrs and ML cameras. If you can run a business with a Leica's rangefinders all the better for you but I'd say most will pick up an SL, which is a pretty new camera compared to the 100 years of rangefinders they've made. Leica is only now beginning to have a viable system for most pros, so it's understandable not many people would run one

Never see such 'pro' for overn30 years. Most ones I see use CaNikon. Some indoors uses Hassy.

None uses Leica ~camera~

Even in the labs where hundreds of 'pro' buy and use Leica Microscope day in, day out.

Most people I know (hundreds too) that use Leica Camera is NOT the professional photographer. Only the amatuer & enthusiast. Each has his/her own profession to get more than enough $$$.

The money they pay for this red dot is a lot less than they pay for their creative activity and pleasure.

Some of them pay for the red dot because 'someone' says it's the best (aka most expensive small) camera. Conform to their social norms and believes : "what's most expensive is the best, else no one buy it".

@Angrymagpie: Right. Leica's about nostalgia. Nostalgic jewelry. Yeah, Leicas can produce great images, but that is secondary to their primary purpose which is to satisfy the owner's ego and sentimentality.

And again, that's fine. I mean, frankly, i think nostalgic jewelry is only for dorky hipsters or dorky old farts but dorky hipsters and dorky old farts have the right to buy and use anything they desire.

@3pgrey:Haha, guarantee the S1/S1R will be better than every Leica body ever made in probably every way a camera can be measured (other than the size of the Leica S line's sensor size). It's already got the best ergos of all mirrorless cameras. My only concern with it is its AF. I don't expect its AF will be good at all. At this point i only use mirrorless for adapted manual-focus lenses because all MILCs have awful ergos (except for the S1) and awful AF. But awesome glass with crappy AF is still better than awesome manual-focus glass. 😊

It will be interesting to see if the native Sigma lenses outperform/make nicer images than the native Panasonic/Leica lenses. If so, then there wouldn't be any need/reason for anything Leica anymore. 😎

@howaboutraw 1925 they started production of cameras and in 1932 introduce the Leica 2 came out in 1932 with a rangefinder system of focus. I'm not too picky about the dates honestly. The slr killed the rangefinder as a workhorse for photographers. Some pros use large format successfully too

The giant 47mp files (and the same boring 28mm focal length) will be why I pass on the Q2.

The 42mp sensor increase in the Rx1RII went over like a lead balloon. It’s just counterintuitive for a small, take everywhere, street-type camera. It should have a lower megapixel sensor optimized for low light performance, speed, fast file processing, buffering & transfer.

Maybe the Q3 will get it right with a 40mm f2 Summicron and a 24mp BSI sensor. Not likely, but one can hope.

Wouldn't the file size 4272 x 2848 ie 12mp or the 24mp size achieve what you need? I think the sharp lens and 47mp sensor is really like 6x9 film MF in a much smaller package but with the same freedom to crop.

Nothing wrong with 28mm. It's the widest possible lens that doesn't scream wide angle. There's a reason most smartphone lenses are 28mm and that alone is a very good reason to make a fixed lens camera the same. Everyone has it pre-visualised from their iPhone. This is the reason I've gone back to 28mm from 24mm. I use my iPhone all the time and I know the focal length.

well, all my phones past years had 24mm, but maybe it's something non typical as manufacturer calls it "photographer's phone"but I agree with you totally with the 28mm, it's the only focal length I really dislike

Weatherproofing means one can shoot in rain not that one should shoot in rain. It's greatest benefit is it provides greater isolation of the camera's insides from humidity, pollen and dust. I don't know but I would expect it would slow progression of internal lens fungus.

I love my Fuji X100F, and its OVF/EVF hybrid viewfinder is just great, but don't kid yourself that manual focus on the Fuji is anything other than a frustrating endeavour. On the Q it is just like using a very high quality real manual lens. It may not be mechanically coupled, but the distance scale, and staying where you put it, whether turned on or off, is so useful, plus it has a wonderful, reliable smooth feel, which is accurately indexed with a real stop. Chalk and cheese. It is these thoughtful and expensive to manufacture well extras, that push up the price of the Q.

It’s a Sony RX1 series killer camera! Honestly, I can’t find anything bad about the specs of this camera , and of course the Leica colours and the build quality ( I hope they didn’t offshore it to China ).

AlanG - bang on. I guess Leica made the SL a faux DSLR to fill in their line a bit like when they had the original SL or Rs in film days. But there is no real need to have that bulky design and the compact Q shape would be soooooo much more appealing for quite a few of us. In fact, I find the CL more appealing than the SL and just realised that is largely because of the body design.

Interestingly, some people who prefer "rangefinder"-style placement of the viewfinder are using a similar argument, namely that an SLR-style viewfinder placed in line with the optical axis is an anachronism that is no longer necessary in a modern mirrorless camera. In other words, both design philosophies can be seen as old-fashioned or modern, depending on whom you ask.

I use a Q, left eyed no problem. It’s a fabulous camera and the lens Is stunning. It’s so simple to use and it’s a photographers camera. No fancy menus and fluff like some other brands either. Mine has been hammered too. German made and you’ve well over a 100 years of heritage. I take it everywhere too.

I'm right eyed but once had an issue with it and had to switch to my left eye for a few weeks. After a day or so I didn't think about it and now I can use either equally comfortable. So if it was the only thing holding me back from a camera I would definitely consider it anyway.

My point is that both side- and centerplaced viewfinders are associated with a technology considered by some to be old or obsolete, namely rangefinder and SLR, respectively. Since a modern, mirrorless camera uses neither of those technologies, the placement of the viewfinder really boils down to personal preference, and it's pointless to say that one or the other is more modern, or that one is only for "purists".

And for the record, I much prefer "SLR-styled" cameras, so I'm not arguing against your preference, only against the notion that it's somehow more modern.

First Leica I've ever thought was interesting. For what you get, the price is not even total lunacy. It's high, but where else are you going to get a 47mp FF compact with serious environmental protection in a simple, good-looking form factor? It's not crazy high, just regular high.

I thought to myself when I read this... "if this camera is 4995, then darn it I should have a look for a better priced Leica Q-P!!" Oh boy was I wrong. The cheapest I could find the Leica Q-P for (in a quick search was for 4800. And new it is the same price as the Q2. Craziness.

I love articulated LCDs, but calling a fixed LCD on a camera of this design unusable is absurd. One of my favorite cameras is the X100F, and as much as I like articulated screens, I don’t miss it on that camera. Not every camera needs, or should, have every feature.

Not arguing, but couldn't you just cover it if you don't want to see it? Or must it be movable?

I liked the movable screen on my old D5200, but only for Macro and Astrophotography. Can you use a cell phone for output, for other uses? Like video (like they do in the XT30 video demo here on DPReview?)

Are some of you so brainwashed by cell-phone cameras that you find it acceptable to hold a camera out in front of you, unable to frame properly or get a proper angle at different heights or POVs? I would not go near a camera with a fixed LCD, and haven’t for many years. Fully articulated not needed - but tilting is essential if you shoot moving subjects at creative angles as I do out on the street.

Fixed LCD are completely unusable for me, it’s hard to believe they still make them. And this camera hardly has a grip either. Absolutely worthless AFAIC, even though it’s a revered Leica, a name which seems to put people in an hypnotic trance.

No I don’t use a phone for street photography or any LCD, I would use the viewfinder or just shoot from the hip.

If creative angles, street photography, and tilting LCDs are synonymous for you then you hold practice more. The first ~70 something year of street photography involved cameras that had NO LCDs to speak of.

Of course you can use a camera without a flippy screen. The older photographers have all used cameras with only a viewfinder (you know film days).Would I still buy a camera without that feature? No, definitely not.And for a camera of that price, I find it kind of weird.

This is the very first digital Leica that I have truly been interested in. And the best part is, one doesn't have to jump on the very expensive Leica lens parade. The camera (and possibly a flash for some) is all you need. Nice job.

Yes I see what you mean. Buying into a Leica system sounds crazy but with these you avoid that. I think a very nice addition is the weather sealing. It would be such a valuable thing to own that it only feels right that you shouldn't have worry about a $5000 object if it's raining. Of course, a modern full frame sensor helps too. Lecia's sometimes have features that lag behind the rest but this one feels well rounded. Yes, no articulating LCD but I would survive that.

If you are shooting RAW and using Lightroom (is that still free with a Leica?), you could just apply a preset at import to give that aspect ratio. Leica pretty much invented 3:2, which has become a standard for good reason, so you should expect that! Personally, I hate 4:3 because you have to crop every photo...

@Harold 99% of photos get cropped regardless of which aspect ratio you like. Unless you don't edit any of your work I don't see what the hassle is. I assume you edit your work if you enjoy 4:3 more than any other ratio

@David Getting it right in camera is always a win, but when you didn't manage to shoot straight or there's something just poking into the frame or you shot from the hip and hoped for the best most photos aren't magic straight from the sensor. Some are and they're the ones you live for. As for the 4:3 yeah you're a minority, but only because everyone got sick of looking at it decades ago. Taller ratios work nicer with more dof, and it's the only way to compose square properly but... I think 3:2 has better balance

3pgrey . Not sure where you got your statistic . For me, and many others ,an important part of creating an image is composing it the way you envisioned. There are of course a few times where you have to crop the image but Probably 95% of my images are shown or printed without ANY. Cropping. And I shoot lots of verticals for which the 3:2 ratio is both impractical and awful

David, Not as small a minority as you think. Learning on 4X5, I loved 6X7 and 645 never warming up to 135's too wide for normal prints and not wide enough for panorama. Cropping was a total PITA in the 60's and it was tough when the custom 8X12 frame cost more than the print. I used 135 then when i needed to, but now I don't have to. CAN I use 3:2 today and crop? Sure and it's much easier...BUT, I don't have to.

3 pgrey. You are making stuff as you go. May i remind you that most magazines have a ratio closer to 4:3 than 3:2 . Same goes for Instagram. All digital medium format have a 4:3 ratio. And good luck cropping a vertical 3:2 in the width

@3pgrey maybe 99% of YOUR photos are cropped. Most serious photographers worth their salt leaned to frame, compose and get it right before hitting the shutter button. (Especially those of us who learned photography on film cameras).

Ok people I took some liberties in assuming we weren't shooting formal portraits or macro or anything where you have complete control, because it doesn't play to a Leica's strengths. As for vertical shots in 3:2 they're harder to compose yes I agree but because you need to work composition into depth. I think you'll find that magazines are closer to 3:2 with a full spread. Film isn't cheap, and getting it right sooner rather than later is better, but it costs nothing to take a digital photo. Why wouldn't you try get the shot, instead of getting what you think is the perfect shot? There are so many great pictures between the ones we chase

3pgrey.. "You need to work composition into depth".. what is this supposed to mean ? and if it means anything how would it apply to only when shooting in 3;2 ratio. Let s be more practical . When you shoot street photography sometimes when you shoot a vertical scene , there might be someone's leg or hand or another object entering the image from one of the sides. Well , in that case try to crop this out of the picture and see what happensHarold

@Harold You shrink the entire picture to keep the same ratio, ideally. Not to hard for most street where there's usually not too much in the sky. Um, as for composition using depth, it's linked to ratios. Look at the photos from a hasselblad xpan and a square format photo and see how the xpan separates a subject from the background and how a 500c can tie a background to a subject with help from their ratios. I think 3:2 vertically is a bit extreme compared to how we see the world and more care is needed to tie the background to the foreground

I did look into this, currently I own an X-Pro2 and half a dozen prime X lenses and the newest Macro. I thought about selling all of it to go, half way at least for the Q2.

I went onto a popular Leica forum (no names) and I enquired about this new camera and ask what roughly the price would be. What put me off was some sarcastic comments saying, you should not ask the price, its like Rolex, Bentley, it is what is is, or something like that.

To me that was a totally pathetic and patronising comment for a serious question that does the Leica brand no good, especially when people are looking seriously, as I was in going the Q route. Of course there are many professional and talented Leica users, that goes without saying, however some of these pathetic comments on Leica owner forums do no justice to the Leica brand and just help alienate some users from the brand IMOH and just because they can 'afford' a red-dot camera does not mean they are all good or talented photographers.

@NickyB66" just because they can 'afford' a red-dot camera..."Nicky you are assuming that just because they are on a Leica forum they actually own one, and aren't just venting their frustration at NOT being able to own one by pretending they do.

Nicky, surely you have been online long enough to know that you should take whatever you read on a forum with a grain of salt. . .

All photo forums are not created equal. While not strictly a forum, I find the comments on Ming Thein's blog are from more experienced and mature commenters. I hope that Ming reviews the Q2; I appreciate his viewpoint when it comes to cameras/lenses in Real World-use vs. test charts/images.

Good luck selling your Fuji gear. I used to own an X-Pro1 and 4 Fuji lenses....cost me a small fortune as I was an early adapter and I got pennies on the dollar when I sold it all. I've owned literally dozens of cameras from Fuji, Canon, Mamiya, Leica and nothing depreciates like a Fuji. Maybe that should be their new slogan lol.

Interestingly enough, the price was actually on the low end of what people were expecting, so it's very possible a few of those people were surprised. Maybe even disappointed that their expensive status symbol wasn't as exclusive as they were hoping.

I am a very happy Q owner who fortunately is in the financial position to be able to afford a Q2 to replace it. It doesn't hurt that Leica cameras hold their value far better than most electronics.

I will tell you a funny game I play when I meet someone curious about what is obviously a very unique product. ask them how much they think it is. I get estimates ranging roughly from $300 (!) to $1,800. Only people who know the Leica brand guess anywhere near the correct price ($4,250 at the time I bought it, $4,995 for the Q2). So if you were wondering why people can carry their Leica Qs into countries where the per-capita annual income is considerably less than the cost of a Q, now you know. People simply have no idea what it's worth.

@Nicky: Mate, maybe he's just a "new" or first time Leica owner. ("new" like in "new rich") Seasoned Leica owners would never give comments like the one you got. Ignore and forget. Just enjoy Leica. And, can he even handle a Leica? Can he take a picture?

Alas. Having the original Q I'd miss the ports seriously if I switch. But I think this comes from the need for a bigger battery (itself because of the more powerful processor, itself to handle much more pixels).Located as it is, the new big battery just eats up the whole connector space from the Q.But anyway, I just cannot make up my mind until I see the full DPReview data -comparing images with the Q on the very same targets.That's the way they won my switch from Nikon to the Q, indeed.

People still think that cropping is like having lenses from different focal lengths in one, well it is not. A 28mm cropped is not magically turned into a 75mm portrait lens. You still have the 28mm distortion.

ZeBebito - That is only true if you frame the shot as a 28mm shot and then stand still while flicking the digital zoom on. It is not true if you change your distance to subject, reframing to match the 75mm focal length.

ZeBebito... Distortion is not as bad as you might think because the crop comes from the center of the lens. I have a Ricoh GR with a 28mm f/2.8. The crop modes work brilliantly. I'm sure they're excellent here as well - but with much higher resolution.

Cropping before or after isn't the issue. There is no difference in the image between cropping in camera or in post. The issue for perspective distortion (for example, an overly big nose on a headshot) is whether you changed your distance to the subject before taking the picture.

Zebito what are you talking about?You think the distance from the virtual entrance pupil to the sensor determines distortion? Do you think a 28mm on m43 has different distortion for the same image as a 56mm on 135?

Very simple... field of view, distortion and depth of field always will be according to a 28mm lens. The fact that you eliminate the sides of the image cropping won't change that. Your lens is 28mm period. Try making a close up portrait with a 50mm full frame and the same close up shot with a 28mm (same full frame camera) and get back to us.

FOV: The FOV of a cropped image is obviously different, period. You can crop the image to achieve the exact same FOV of a 35mm, 50mm or 75mm lens.

Distortion: Lens distortion depends on the optical design more so than the focal length. Cropping parts of the images obviously crops out the distortion patterns in this area as well. Perspective distortion depends on your subject distance. Since you use 75mm frame lines you will also have the same distance and the same distortion as using a 75mm lens.

Depth of field: You obviously need to apply a crop-factor to calculate equivalent characteristics. With the 50mm crop you are essentially shooting with a 50mm f3.

Like 4 year olds you need an example to understand the difference in terms of distortion and background compression of different focal lenghts. I am too busy to give you another class so I hope you will get it this time.

Again showing you have learned nothing and don't actually understand what the image you linked is showing... This is a gif that could be made while walking towards or away from a subject and then cropping each frame to keep the same subject size.

You can recreate the same effect by looking at your friend from far away and then walking towards them. You are misattributing the cause of the difference in appearance to the focal length of the lens. Which at this point in the discussion is just willful ignorance.

You might not admit you're wrong to me out of pride but at least you could try to learn something so you don't continue propogating your own misunderstanding.

ZeBebito - That is only true if you frame the shot as a 28mm shot and then stand still while flicking the digital zoom on. It is not true if you change your distance to subject, reframing to match the 75mm focal length.

Thank you Dave. That’s correct, and also thanks for comment without being nasty as the other folks.

It is reasonable because if you want what this Q2 offers from somewhere else, you will have to pay roughly the same. And you still will not get something quite a bit different. Or you can pay less and get less.

If you can show me a truly competitive product at a significantly lower price, then sure, those $5000 will be a lot less reasonable. But there's no such product.

No. My EDC is a Sony RX1RII, and I like the 35mm focal length better than 28mm. I do have a Ricoh GRIII on order for when even the RX1 is too big to carry. Now if they had a Q2 with a 50mm lens, that would be an entirely different story.

I had tried the Q and the SL when they came out, at the Leica Store SF, but found both to be excessively bulky.

I suspect my M10 is due for a severe depreciation when they introduce the M11 with the Q2's sensor.

I think DPReview gets it right with many of their sample galleries—I especially like some of Carey Rose’s shots. That being said, the above points are valid.

Maybe DPReview should have a ‘Protog on Residence’? Maybe switch off every few months and get someone new, just to get a more artistic/less techy take on sample galleries (similar to what they do w/ sponsored posts—except give Protog complete editorial freedom so that s/he is not beholden to manufacturer).

With that 1.7 28mm lens, this would be interesting for longer exposures at higher ISO. On the Q, Leica limited the combination so it was impossible to shoot at 30 sec with ISO 3200. If you have an opportunity to see the limitation Leica imposed, that would be helpful to know. Just checked the manual, they hint at similar ISO/Shutter Length limitations, but offer no specifics. Any clarity would be appreciated.

I've said it before and I'll say it again....Leica hurry up and make this camera with an M mount so I can mount all my glass and you will have these flying off the shelves. Stop protecting your beloved M rangefinder series...you will still sell those to plenty of people who prefer them.

I agree with you, why not? If Leica can make an M with no LCD screen surely there is room in the portfolio for a Q with an M mount. I honestly believe they are trying to protect the M. The M rangefinder is their historic pièce de résistance. The idea that an M style camera with (gasp) an EVF would quickly outsell it is something they haven't been willing to face.

Using those Leica M lenses on a EVF only body wouldn't be a great idea.

You have no electronic contacts on those lenses that would allow you to trigger an automatic magnifier when you are focusing. If anything they would have to construct some sort of mechanism that makes use of the rangefinder-related "levers".You would be stuck with manual magnification and focus peaking. Hardly a pleasant experience.

@Stopthegas - That's not true at all. I use focus peaking on my SL with rangefinder glass all the time and it works brilliantly. I would actually say that for 90% of the lenses I own an EVF is preferable to a rangefinder. A rangefinder is great for 28/35/50mm and that is about it. Even at those focal lengths you don't get 100% framing accuracy, and the rangefinder is much harder to use for 75/90 focal lengths.

Q1 user here, I'm very happy the Q2 is out. Looks like Q1s are being dumped on ebay and prices are falling. In a weird way, I'm kinda happy about it. I always knew digital cameras depreciate, but when resale values remained high I had a tendency to baby the Q a bit too much (always in mind was that I had a $3500ish camera). Now I think I'll be more inclined to shoot with it more. I know that if something happens to it, replacements on ebay should be plentiful for several years as more owners dump theirs and the price should settle around $2000-$2500, while if I want to pay for it, a Q2 would also be available for (Leica standards) nothing too exorbiant.

Hilarious. Zeiss spent all of this time marketing the ZX1 with no price or shipping date and Leica jumps the line with their updated camera already shipping. I had a feeling either Sony or Leica was going to do this. I expect Sony to have an updated RX1 as well which will undercut both models in price. If Zeiss could have release this last year it would have been much better for them but I fully expect the ZX1 to be very pricey in the Leica territory.

Leica recently announced the Q2, a digital rangefinder with a fixed 28mm F1.7 lens. It's a heck of a lot of fun to shoot with, but is it right for you? Based on our time with the camera, and its specifications, we've examined how well-suited it is for common photography use-cases.

Almost four years since the original Q was launched Leica has unveiled the Q2, which adds a higher-resolution sensor, revamped interface and improved video capabilities. Here's everything you need to know about Leica's new luxury compact.

Latest in-depth reviews

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

The S1H is a full frame mirrorless camera designed with videographers in mind and includes advanced features like 6K video capture, 4:2:2 10-bit internal recording, improved video scopes, high frame rate recording, Panasonic Varicam color science and more.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.